'Big Three were more likely to make progress' - Isaac

The ICC's president and CEO on why the Big Three were chosen as the boards to take cricket forward

'Struggled to find Test Championship format'

David Richardson, the ICC CEO, has said the inability to find a suitable format led to the World Test Championship failing to get off the ground.

"I think we were always struggling to find a format for WTC that could be completed within a relatively short space of time and that would not lead to more damage than good," Richardson said. "As we know draws are such an important part of Tests and you've seen numerous formats tried in various countries where you have a final for your domestic competitions and those finals always tend to be damp squibs really because one team is playing for a draw on first-innings lead."

Richardson said the lack of a Test Championship was not a setback for the format as the ICC's rankings were becoming significant. "If you look at it the way the board has looked at it now, we have the ranking system which is becoming more and more prominent, more and more people taking note of it, more teams are trying to end the year as No. 1 and earn the financial prize money that goes with that. There's prestige involved in being No. 1 and holding the mace."

Alan Isaac, the ICC president, has said that he pushed the three financially strongest boards to collaborate on the revolutionary proposals, instead of involving all Full Members, as they "were more likely to make progress more quickly". Isaac also said the Big Three have been working on draft proposals that called for sweeping changes in world cricket since last July.

"We've been working for some time on the process for selling our commercial rights for post 2015 and part of that process required that we had a members participation agreement (MPA)," Isaac said at the end of the ICC's two-day meeting in Dubai. "You can't go to the market unless you have demonstrated that all members will participate. Round about July last year, I encouraged CA, ECB and BCCI to work together and develop conditions of which all members could happily agree to an MPA."

David Richardson, the ICC CEO, explained why the Big Three were entrusted with drawing up the proposals, with other Full Members only seeing them during a specially-called meeting on January 9. "There were numerous negotiations with all members but only towards the end of that process were the sticking points to be determined," Richardson said. "Those sticking points primarily related to Australia, England and India and to make progress they were asked to discuss things among themselves and see what can be sorted out."

Isaac's reasoning was simpler. "You have to start somewhere. To have the three bigger, stronger members in a room coming up with something that was a basis for discussion - and that is what the draft was, a basis for discussion."

He also said that having a smaller group had helped push discussions along. "It's not unusual to have a working group to look at a particular issue - this is no different than that. I could've added extra people to it, [but] I just felt that the board members from CA and ECB working with India were more likely to make progress more quickly."

Isaac was also not worried that the new ICC governance structure being proposed could give the Big Three control over the world game. "[The ICC] has a group of people who are charged with being directors, who have to act in the best interests of world cricket. That responsibility was reiterated many times in the last two-three days. It is accepted of course that they sit around the table as presidents or chairmen of member boards but the discussion of the last two days has been in respect of their roles as directors of ICC acting in the best interests of world cricket."

When asked why there had been no vote on the proposals at the ICC meeting, Isaac said some of the details were still being worked on. "The resolutions are still being discussed, the content of resolution and some of the details behind them. That's why we took an approach of not having a vote because there was nothing to vote on but we thought it was important to make some progress around some principles."

Isaac was asked whether giving control to three financially strong boards was a practical solution to handle any opposition to policies. Using the example of how the BCCI, he said, "I find this quite interesting because if you wind back two-three weeks before January 9, the view around the world, the criticism of world cricket was that the ICC and world cricket was controlled by the BCCI. You get to the January 9 leaking of documents and all of a sudden there is criticism because there are three members driving world cricket." The reality, Isaac said, " is that England, Australia and South Africa started it [Test cricket] and the experience of those boards is greater than a whole lot of others. But that's not even relevant. You have to start somewhere. At the end of the day the board will only agree to the recommendations if they thought they were in the best interests of world cricket."

In reply to a question on whether there had been any other parameters other than the financial contributions of the Australian, English and Indian cricket boards, when asking them to revise the revised governance and revenue plan, Isaac said, "I'm not sure how to answer that, really. I made the point that you have to start somewhere and I'm happy to say I encouraged them to work together. We've had a situation at ICC board meetings where we often go from one meeting to another meeting three months later and we don't make a lot of progress. By getting a smaller group together we often make progress. It's not unusual to have a working group to look at a particular issue - this is no different than that. I could have added extra people to it. I just felt that the board members from CA and ECB working with India were more likely to make progress more quickly.

He said there had been "confusion" over the "unanimous support" offered to the "principles" by the Full Member boards on Tuesday. "We had an IDI [ICC's existing commercial arm] board meeting today and we reconfirmed that the agreement to those principles was unanimous. Where I think there is some confusion is when the details [are] put on those principles and they take the form of resolutions in terms of how the principles will apply. There will be a need for some boards to go to their board members for consultations. In terms of agreeing to those principles, the directors reiterated this morning that it was unanimous."

Isaac said the purpose of the special January 9 board meeting was to "give Full Members at least a bit of an indication of where the thinking was at. The alternative could have been not to have consulted them at all and brought them to this meeting and told them this is where we're at. So I think it's really positive that there was a meeting on January 9 and as a result of that meeting, there have been a lot of discussions and bilaterals through the recommendations seen on that draft and what forms the basis of resolutions to be considered at subsequent meetings. So you have to start somewhere."

The Big Three are counting on everybody to cow down to their will. India claims to contribute 80% of ICC income. Who did the sums.? Test teams tour India and out of the 80% how much is attributed to the visiting tourists.? If the sides touring India do not add value to income generated why go there? India as tourists are not worth the money spent on their stay, if you go by their recent touring record i.e. Tests 4-nil in England ; 4-nil in Australia, one-nil in South Africa, leaving aside their one day record while touring. Just today they lost a series 4-nil to New Zealand who are 8th in the rankings while India arrived there as number one. Either way, these facts do not justify the claim of 80% of income generated by India.

POSTED BY
on | January 31, 2014, 4:20 GMT

@Thegimp, Granted our SA Board has messed things up historically. Impossible to argue otherwise.
But in the last 9 months they have put governance in place, appointed independent directors and chosen a good CEO (much to India's ire)
They have improved a lot.

But even accepting what you say is true, does it follow that the Big 3 should run cricket, each with an effective veto? Does it follow they should be exempt from relegation?

As for good governance Indian cricket may well be hugely financially successful but if you are implying they are a paragon or transparency and good governance then I dont know what to say.

Sure many of the other countries are less successful financially. It does not follow they they are ever more condemned to the lower table. Right now what the big 3 are doing is buying off the dissenters with promises of tours etc.

Its the old Empire again. Only with India added.

POSTED BY
Cpt.Meanster
on | January 31, 2014, 1:21 GMT

@mzm149: Agreed. You got a valid point. This proves how absurd these new ICC regulations are. Who are they fooling ? Even the BCCI are okay with their claims of a higher profit share but other than that, I don't believe in a Security Council style ICC. Sport should be played on merit and democratic principles of equal opportunity and equal advancement. It seems the Big 3 aren't willing to compromise on that issue.

POSTED BY
Moppa
on | January 31, 2014, 0:27 GMT

@Sigismund - the timeless Test final is a good solution. To stop it from getting completely ridiculous, you could bring in a special rule, e.g. compulsory declaration after 180 overs.

POSTED BY
Sigismund
on | January 30, 2014, 18:57 GMT

I have said it before, but to me the solution for the WTC is obvious: the final has to be a timeless Test. If this is a bit inconvenient for the broadcaster, then simply CHARGE THEM LESS MONEY! There can be only one argument against this: that the primary guiding principle of cricket administrators is to make as much money as possible.

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 15:28 GMT

I do not know on what basis the Big Three are decided. If it is based on performance then it will be big joke as India and England are really struggling now. South Africa, really missing though it is one of the best performing teams in three forms. I gradually loose interest as the game and the administration is highly corrupted now

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 14:07 GMT

Mr. Kamal from Bangladesh iis going to be the new ICC President according to the current constitution. None of the Big 3 finds this acceptable. Furthermore, the Big 3, thinks that they are the only ones who can run professional organization to raise the most money and are not influenced by the Betting world. In a way, they are exercising their inheritance right. If they could ECB and CA would go along, but they know without BCCI they can not do this. India is going in for the cricket world dominance. India is the new US in the cricketing world. The Big 3 finds the rest of the ICC full members as distraction. Nothing is simple. For every action there is a reaction.

POSTED BY
TheCricketEmpireStrikesBack
on | January 30, 2014, 11:40 GMT

@VisBal has summarised this beautifully.

"Big Three were more likely to make progress" and, inevitably, also further their self-interest to the detriment of others. If all was really above-board why the need for secretive meetings? Congratulations to Sharda Ugra, Jarrod Kimber and all the ESPNcricinfo staff for an excellent use of the media and bringing this to everyone's attention before it was too late.

POSTED BY
billycraven
on | January 30, 2014, 10:25 GMT

We, SA, rank in the top 3 of all formats of the game yet we are not part of the decision making of the ICC. It tells us that our players are of the best but our administration is not. Surely this will result in cricket in SA going backwards, the recent Indian tour is the start, they decide what they want and how they want it. I suppose it is one way of taking the no 1 test ranking from us, if at first you do not succeed, try something else. I wonder whether Dave Richardson will still be welcome back home.

POSTED BY
saffaexile
on | January 30, 2014, 9:45 GMT

Yes I may be getting upset but not because my board hasn't been given a seat at the top table and I made no inference to the ability of any one's board or that they should run the ICC. The point is that the result is undemocratic which for an international organisation is simply unacceptable and should be from ANYONE'S point of view.

POSTED BY
stonk
on | January 31, 2014, 12:00 GMT

The Big Three are counting on everybody to cow down to their will. India claims to contribute 80% of ICC income. Who did the sums.? Test teams tour India and out of the 80% how much is attributed to the visiting tourists.? If the sides touring India do not add value to income generated why go there? India as tourists are not worth the money spent on their stay, if you go by their recent touring record i.e. Tests 4-nil in England ; 4-nil in Australia, one-nil in South Africa, leaving aside their one day record while touring. Just today they lost a series 4-nil to New Zealand who are 8th in the rankings while India arrived there as number one. Either way, these facts do not justify the claim of 80% of income generated by India.

POSTED BY
on | January 31, 2014, 4:20 GMT

@Thegimp, Granted our SA Board has messed things up historically. Impossible to argue otherwise.
But in the last 9 months they have put governance in place, appointed independent directors and chosen a good CEO (much to India's ire)
They have improved a lot.

But even accepting what you say is true, does it follow that the Big 3 should run cricket, each with an effective veto? Does it follow they should be exempt from relegation?

As for good governance Indian cricket may well be hugely financially successful but if you are implying they are a paragon or transparency and good governance then I dont know what to say.

Sure many of the other countries are less successful financially. It does not follow they they are ever more condemned to the lower table. Right now what the big 3 are doing is buying off the dissenters with promises of tours etc.

Its the old Empire again. Only with India added.

POSTED BY
Cpt.Meanster
on | January 31, 2014, 1:21 GMT

@mzm149: Agreed. You got a valid point. This proves how absurd these new ICC regulations are. Who are they fooling ? Even the BCCI are okay with their claims of a higher profit share but other than that, I don't believe in a Security Council style ICC. Sport should be played on merit and democratic principles of equal opportunity and equal advancement. It seems the Big 3 aren't willing to compromise on that issue.

POSTED BY
Moppa
on | January 31, 2014, 0:27 GMT

@Sigismund - the timeless Test final is a good solution. To stop it from getting completely ridiculous, you could bring in a special rule, e.g. compulsory declaration after 180 overs.

POSTED BY
Sigismund
on | January 30, 2014, 18:57 GMT

I have said it before, but to me the solution for the WTC is obvious: the final has to be a timeless Test. If this is a bit inconvenient for the broadcaster, then simply CHARGE THEM LESS MONEY! There can be only one argument against this: that the primary guiding principle of cricket administrators is to make as much money as possible.

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 15:28 GMT

I do not know on what basis the Big Three are decided. If it is based on performance then it will be big joke as India and England are really struggling now. South Africa, really missing though it is one of the best performing teams in three forms. I gradually loose interest as the game and the administration is highly corrupted now

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 14:07 GMT

Mr. Kamal from Bangladesh iis going to be the new ICC President according to the current constitution. None of the Big 3 finds this acceptable. Furthermore, the Big 3, thinks that they are the only ones who can run professional organization to raise the most money and are not influenced by the Betting world. In a way, they are exercising their inheritance right. If they could ECB and CA would go along, but they know without BCCI they can not do this. India is going in for the cricket world dominance. India is the new US in the cricketing world. The Big 3 finds the rest of the ICC full members as distraction. Nothing is simple. For every action there is a reaction.

POSTED BY
TheCricketEmpireStrikesBack
on | January 30, 2014, 11:40 GMT

@VisBal has summarised this beautifully.

"Big Three were more likely to make progress" and, inevitably, also further their self-interest to the detriment of others. If all was really above-board why the need for secretive meetings? Congratulations to Sharda Ugra, Jarrod Kimber and all the ESPNcricinfo staff for an excellent use of the media and bringing this to everyone's attention before it was too late.

POSTED BY
billycraven
on | January 30, 2014, 10:25 GMT

We, SA, rank in the top 3 of all formats of the game yet we are not part of the decision making of the ICC. It tells us that our players are of the best but our administration is not. Surely this will result in cricket in SA going backwards, the recent Indian tour is the start, they decide what they want and how they want it. I suppose it is one way of taking the no 1 test ranking from us, if at first you do not succeed, try something else. I wonder whether Dave Richardson will still be welcome back home.

POSTED BY
saffaexile
on | January 30, 2014, 9:45 GMT

Yes I may be getting upset but not because my board hasn't been given a seat at the top table and I made no inference to the ability of any one's board or that they should run the ICC. The point is that the result is undemocratic which for an international organisation is simply unacceptable and should be from ANYONE'S point of view.

POSTED BY
Thegimp
on | January 30, 2014, 9:25 GMT

There are a lot of Saffas on here getting very upset.

Guys don't confuse having a great team with having a great board. A board with the ability to run cricket on a world scale. Yours can't run cricket in South Africa. Same could be said about other nations. This is not a sledge on how you play cricket it is making sure cricket is run right.

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 9:22 GMT

ICC give all their main events to these big three. Due to this reason they earn more than others. Then they demand that because we earn more we should get more.

I would see how much they earn if the main events are given to other 7.

POSTED BY
karachikhatmal
on | January 30, 2014, 9:18 GMT

My comment's been eaten up twice by a faulty internet connection so don't know if this is a repeat post but...

"Round about July last year, I encouraged CA, ECB and BCCI to work together and develop conditions of which all members could happily agree to an MPA."

This is statement by Issac has shut a MASSIVE loophole for the Big 3. By claiming that he initiated this process, the Big 3 can't be accused of acting out of their self interest and hence against the ICC"s charter. This is the reason he keeps being asked to explain the incredulous situation where he himself asked for the Big 3 to strip away the power of the institution he heads.

POSTED BY
py0alb
on | January 30, 2014, 9:02 GMT

I could have thought of a format. If Mr Richardson could not, perhaps he should resign as he is clearly not up to the job.

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 8:12 GMT

So now that we have seen that even cricket boards can be purchased,than why were those thre players banned for just bowling few no balls?If those players had damaged the spirit of cricket than so have these so called "Big threes" and all other boards who are siding with them for more financial support.It seems I should stop watching this sport,its too much related to economics rather than spirit of sports.

POSTED BY
saffaexile
on | January 30, 2014, 8:00 GMT

This is all subterfuge, what are the conditions of leadership in this case and how are the incumbent boards motivated to work in the interest of the world game? All we have been told is that the BCCI will have this role and the other two theirs, firstly is the process democratic and will other boards have the chance at leadership? and secondly how was the decision to make these boards leaders democratically agreed? Neither are evident from what we have heard.

And with the big three taking in more revenue than the other member boards and then being in control of the distribution what other conclusion are we to arrive at but the one that indicates collusion and bad or no due process?

POSTED BY
VisBal
on | January 30, 2014, 7:59 GMT

If the ICC needed cleaning up in its administration (and the consensus seems to be that it does), why not look at the Woolf Committee Report? There was only one board that did not agree with it. If they had voted then, I am sure they could have implemented it. That would have made the ICC a professionally managed body not beholden to any of the Boards. This current step is retrograde. No marks for guessing which board was standing out.

POSTED BY
mzm149
on | January 30, 2014, 7:56 GMT

"By getting a smaller group together we often make progress. It's not unusual to have a working group to look at a particular issue - this is no different than that. I could have added extra people to it. I just felt that the board members from CA and ECB working with India were more likely to make progress more quickly."

That is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. Having people on board with such biased, insular and illogical views, downfall of ICC was imminent. I wish there would have been some plan C, much better than status quo and this big three overhaul.

POSTED BY
rizwan1981
on | January 30, 2014, 7:56 GMT

India , England and Australia will have their comeuppance someday-Any student of history will tell you that and I hope the big 3 will be taught a lesson sooner rather than later .

POSTED BY
mzm149
on | January 30, 2014, 7:48 GMT

@Cpt.Meanster: My point was that ECB and CA's contribution to revenue is not strikingly different from all other boards apart from BCCI. Giving them more test fund as compared to other nations is not fair. Giving them more power (on the basis of contribution to revenue) is not fair as well. I think on these points we both agree?

POSTED BY
RyanHarrisGreatCricketer
on | January 30, 2014, 7:23 GMT

What made the president think that the three boards were more likely to make progress?
After all two of those boards run teams who do not know how to play outside their comfort zones at the moment

POSTED BY
JustIPL
on | January 30, 2014, 7:21 GMT

As long as there are enough tests and limited overs affairs among the top teams i.e. pak, india, aus, eng, nz, sl, wi & sa, it does not matter who make what amount of money and who has the rights. etc. Furthermore, if globalization is continued despite these revamps then it is good for cricket. I don't think that eng, aus, sa will refrain to beat india out there in the middle despite so much indian money. You can take the example of nz how they have beaten india despite supporting the bcci proposals. I am sure fans will still enjoy the games as they will be keep getting more and more competitive. If a particular team, i dont want to name one, is continuously losing then fans will rate them as minnows whatever order they have on ICC ranking table. And despite this eng players did not prefer IPL while their board is partnering indian in ruling icc.

POSTED BY
RyanHarrisGreatCricketer
on | January 30, 2014, 7:19 GMT

Richardson is joking when he says draws are an integral part of tests. In recent times, due to proliferation in quantity of white-ball cricket, outright results are the norm.
England in Australia-0-5 (out of 5)
Australia in India-0-4 (out of 4)
Pakistan v Sri Lanka-1-1 (out of 3)

and anyways just because there is the chance of a draw, it does not mean a match is less likely to be interesting. What about the Johannesburg test in 2013 between Ind and SA?

POSTED BY
kentjones
on | January 30, 2014, 6:53 GMT

Mr. Isaac, how can you just ignore the opinions and thoughts of the R7 ( the rest of the seven) just for the sake of expediency. that sounds like a dictator talking to me. Democracy and consensus must be maintained at all costs and the ends DO NOT justify the means. I guess your considered view is that the R7 are not significant enough for their opinion to matter. The beautiful game has now become a big unbelievable shame. The most remarkable thing for me is that the B3 is not getting it. Or maybe my worst fears are being realised. They just dont care about the R7.

POSTED BY
Cpt.Meanster
on | January 30, 2014, 6:49 GMT

@mzm149: Exactly ! So if the other boards combine for 10%, that's not bad is it ? Oh wait.

POSTED BY
hellothereeveryone
on | January 30, 2014, 6:35 GMT

I think its time for countries other than big 3 to say good bye to ICC and form their own cricket governing body. With teams like SA, Pak, WI, NZ we can still have a lot of competitive cricket may be even better than the big three will have among themselves.

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 6:35 GMT

theCricketPurist SA played no international cricket between 1970 and 1990. They survived and when allowed to play again they were one of the stronger teams, not like others who were struggling even after playing all those years.
If the greedy 3 decide to alienate CSA the game of cricket in the world would be poorer. Only time will tell what this revamp is about.

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 6:33 GMT

One thing is for sure that this porposal is gonna jugulate the interest of a common viewer because if any of the teams except pakistan play at their approved venues there would be one result and that would be India's victory. The reason i excluded Pakistan is because of their last performace when they did a road kill not only to Indian team but to the hopes of their whole naiton.

well, everyone can see India's lust.. and CA's and ECB's needs to juggle around BCCI so that there players can play IPL and they can atleast have little bit hold over world cricket as compared to PCB,CSA and SLCB. ( if any of them would not vote).

The solution to find a suitable format for world test cricket is pretty simple.. You want the results.. you dont want the tests to be drawn cz that would obviously decrease the public interest in the WTC.. well the results can be achieved by adding one clause given below:
" If the runrate drops below 3.5 for a day the inning will be terminated"
it can be a revoln.

POSTED BY
Thegimp
on | January 30, 2014, 6:27 GMT

mzm149..... CA and ECB were included because BCCI cant make money if it doesn't play these two nations. the 80% revenue comes from series against these two nations.

ECB and CA agreed to have a say in world cricket again, a game they fostered for 100 years.

It's not about closing down CSA at all, CSA is broke anyway, this is an attempt to bring back balance to the force, balance that has been teetering under the Empire.

POSTED BY
mzm149
on | January 30, 2014, 6:25 GMT

@Cpt.Meanster: I read in cricinfo's article "Big Three could control revamped ICC"

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/710723.html

The "value contribution" of India is listed as "over 80%" with the other Full Members' contribution ranging between "0.1% to 5%."

So even if we assume that both ECB and CA contribute 5% each, the rest of 10% comes from all other boards.

POSTED BY
kbilgrami
on | January 30, 2014, 5:09 GMT

Big three are trying to divert people's attention on revenue numbers.....more dangerous thing in my opinion is the Control that they will have on the game. They will decide who will play against which team on what venue and when....Imagine India decides that South Africa will play against England in Melbourne just becuase they will earn more money not withstanding the fact that fans from both countries will not be able to watch the match in their country. This is the fundamental flaw in this proposition. It's high time that Teams other than the big 3 stop talking about revenue and should start questioning the Control and Decision making model.

POSTED BY
a-khan74
on | January 30, 2014, 4:49 GMT

AT this point of view i got stucked to even express my feelings.wish the big3 knock bigwig (issac) down soon after job done.Remember!!!!.As u sow,so shall u reap.Very disappointed by WICB approach.Well done CSA,PCB,SLCB.

POSTED BY
theCricketPurist
on | January 30, 2014, 1:18 GMT

The biggest question is - Why was RSA left out of the "Big 3"?

Well most may conclude that they do not make enough money to be given a place in the "top core", but thats not the point here. The general vibes from this proposal are that India wants the money while Aus & Eng want the governance. Well its neither of these.

This whole revamp is basically intended to kill RSA as a cricket nation. Lets face it. India has more than enough money, to cry over a slightly bigger claim. They created this whole proposal to ensure RSA are finished. Eng & Aus were coaxed into agreement by being given a share of the spoils.

The truth is that the BCCI and CSA boards hate each other at the moment. If we look deep, we will realise that no other team loses as much from this as RSA does.

Within 5 years RSA will be finished as a cricket nation. The only way to escape this is by sacking Lorgat and bowing down to the BCCI. If this happens, we will see CSA included in the core.

POSTED BY
on | January 30, 2014, 0:48 GMT

......and they call it gentlemen's game!!

POSTED BY
Syed_imran_abbas
on | January 29, 2014, 23:59 GMT

May God save the cricket from these greedy boards. May the spirit of sports remain save.

POSTED BY
K.H.Dushmantha
on | January 29, 2014, 23:48 GMT

ICC Alan Isac or ICC should consult every board together, make best interest to whole world cricket nation. If ICC or any one has no back borne to maintain ICC, they should resign immediate effect. No any board can't rich or superior or big without ICC which each country play inthernational matches each member countries together. No doubt that India big population and main sport is cricket and has more support around the world, may generate more money to ICC. If BCCI concern money, think what is the best way to ration the money.but not the power to just individual like private business. Cricket is nobleman's sport game whcih should not destroy with BCCI mokery money and try to develop around the world not only even the ten countries.

POSTED BY
amumtaz
on | January 29, 2014, 23:35 GMT

What hypocrisy! Sad really, the greed overtakes the Gentleman's game.

POSTED BY
globalisingcricketzzz
on | January 29, 2014, 22:51 GMT

instead of relegating BAN n ZIM to intercontinental cup ICC shud promote an associate thats the winner of Intl cup to play in second tier consisting of last 4 or 5 test teams.

By this the Intl cup will get more value too.

POSTED BY
on | January 29, 2014, 22:50 GMT

Mzm149 the reason the ECB and CA were involved is because, despite being considerably smaller in terms of. Gross revenue than the BCCI, they are the only other two to be financially self sufficient. They make a net profit on all forms of cricket and add to the pot. All other nations make a net loss and take from the pot. Also, quite tellingly, neither the ECB or CA rely on playing India to draw crowds or get TV viewers. In the UK India are not a popular team to watch coming behind Australia, West Indies and South Africa in terms of viewers and live watchers and only just level with Pakistan. In short, cricket in the uk would survive both financially and in terms watchers if India didn't exist. We don't take indian money and we don't watch indian cricket. IPL over here is on ITV3 mid afternoon and often struggles to get as many viewers as the informercial channels...well under 1 million viewers most games.

POSTED BY
SyBorgg71
on | January 29, 2014, 22:48 GMT

I think we have seen the last SA vs. IND tour for a very very long time. Without FTP's neither board will be able to come to any sort of bilateral agreement. For that matter, India will never play an away test again...why should they. Once given the power to pick and choose who and where to play they have no reason to leave home.

Absolutely disgusting. I hope that at least 3 of the boards see the truth when it comes to voting time. Shoot this proposal down and burn it. I have no problem with income split according to contributions, but 80% is absolute rubbish. It takes 2 to tango. India should play with itself and then claim 100%.

Please can someone tell me, why arent any international players not speaking up about this? Is a gag order been issued to prevent them talking? I guess most of them are money hungry.

POSTED BY
on | January 29, 2014, 22:08 GMT

Yeah I think cricket is going to be a business not a game. As a cricket lover, I want ICC to be fair and square but its not happening here in this big-3 case. And in my opinion international cricket is going to be very less as we have football league here in UK and Europe. Its all money game, no pride. Just try to be a boss and run the rest of World.

POSTED BY
vikipr
on | January 29, 2014, 21:54 GMT

The representatives of the Boards consisting of 1.34 Billion people have agreed for this proposal against 258 Million people. It is close to 95% of the people's representatives are for this. Why the minor 5% is cribbing about it. Get along with the might and be happy

POSTED BY
dulabhai
on | January 29, 2014, 21:00 GMT

RIP world cricket!
Greed never brings anything good.

POSTED BY
sohailmalik1985
on | January 29, 2014, 21:00 GMT

on the day when this proposal got passed i will delete all cricket apps and facebook pages from my mobile and laptop

POSTED BY
GrindAR
on | January 29, 2014, 20:52 GMT

team USA already started ignoring ICC. Way to go...

POSTED BY
Cpt.Meanster
on | January 29, 2014, 20:52 GMT

@mzm149: I guess the BCCI just threw the ECB and CA pieces of bone with meat attached as a way of saying - "You two played cricket before anybody did so you get complimentary seats". The BCCI are so powerful that they can also throw ECB or CA out of the mix if they wanted to. But anyway, both the ECB and CA are there only for the money and I can't blame them for it. However, I still don't think the percentage of revenue sharing is accurate. I mean, if ECB and CA only contribute 5% towards the game, how are they superior to other nations ? It just doesn't make sense. The numbers simply don't add up, literally.

POSTED BY
on | January 29, 2014, 20:41 GMT

This would be end of Country Level Cricket, and more money would be made with events like IPL ... Therefore, Cricket won't produce world class legends anymore.

POSTED BY
mzm149
on | January 29, 2014, 20:21 GMT

If it was all about money that who is the strongest to make decisions, why wasn't it entrusted to BCCI alone, whose monetary contribution is way too much than ECB and CA, to come up with a proposal. Why were CA and ECB included when they each generate only around 5% income for ICC as compared to 80% by BCCI? How are they superior than other boards like PCB and CSA? I don't get it.

POSTED BY
on | January 29, 2014, 20:14 GMT

There is a term NUCLEAR OPTION which is the game of cricket is going to end up with,a parrallel body to ICC would be set up and cricket would be the looser.

POSTED BY
dillyk
on | January 29, 2014, 20:10 GMT

shamefull...... can expect quite a few releases like this where the ICC will try in as confusingly as possible manner try and justify handing all the power to BCCI and it's two henchman CA & ECB.

POSTED BY
on | January 29, 2014, 19:50 GMT

Disgraceful! Probably the most ridiculous statement made by an ICC bigwig. And THAT is quite an achievement!

POSTED BY
SLMaster
on | January 29, 2014, 19:16 GMT

Decisions are made based on money. A money centered approach not a principle-centered approach. This can lead failures in the end. Failure can come in many different faces. We do not know what...but it will....

POSTED BY
SAcricFanBase
on | January 29, 2014, 19:01 GMT

I hope the BIG# like to play alone

POSTED BY
octopus86
on | January 29, 2014, 18:55 GMT

they're destroying the cricket world!..i think other members should get together and make a new body and leave membership of ICC...there are many countries that would want to get involve with new body!

POSTED BY
Cpt.Meanster
on | January 29, 2014, 18:53 GMT

So basically what Isaac is telling is that the BIG 3 lead by India would be the emperors of world cricket, and the rest of the nations would be 'conquered' kings who still keep their kingdoms intact but have to pay subservient taxes to the powers. This is a shameful act to say the least. I have said this before and I will say it again. The BIG 3 only need a certain number of votes. Once they get that, they could completely alienate the rest of the world. I feel sorry for WICB and BCB more than anyone because these two boards hardly have any money. Plus, with their teams being at the bottom of the rankings, they fear for their test status. I am sure Bangladesh are desperate to hold on to their full membership status. Well, they will get their wish, but at the cost of not playing any games against the BIG 3. Ultimately, Bangladesh could continue to remain at the bottom. I rather go to tier 2 and play good competitive cricket rather than do nothing and remain in tier 1.

No featured comments at the moment.

POSTED BY
Cpt.Meanster
on | January 29, 2014, 18:53 GMT

So basically what Isaac is telling is that the BIG 3 lead by India would be the emperors of world cricket, and the rest of the nations would be 'conquered' kings who still keep their kingdoms intact but have to pay subservient taxes to the powers. This is a shameful act to say the least. I have said this before and I will say it again. The BIG 3 only need a certain number of votes. Once they get that, they could completely alienate the rest of the world. I feel sorry for WICB and BCB more than anyone because these two boards hardly have any money. Plus, with their teams being at the bottom of the rankings, they fear for their test status. I am sure Bangladesh are desperate to hold on to their full membership status. Well, they will get their wish, but at the cost of not playing any games against the BIG 3. Ultimately, Bangladesh could continue to remain at the bottom. I rather go to tier 2 and play good competitive cricket rather than do nothing and remain in tier 1.

POSTED BY
octopus86
on | January 29, 2014, 18:55 GMT

they're destroying the cricket world!..i think other members should get together and make a new body and leave membership of ICC...there are many countries that would want to get involve with new body!

POSTED BY
SAcricFanBase
on | January 29, 2014, 19:01 GMT

I hope the BIG# like to play alone

POSTED BY
SLMaster
on | January 29, 2014, 19:16 GMT

Decisions are made based on money. A money centered approach not a principle-centered approach. This can lead failures in the end. Failure can come in many different faces. We do not know what...but it will....

POSTED BY
on | January 29, 2014, 19:50 GMT

Disgraceful! Probably the most ridiculous statement made by an ICC bigwig. And THAT is quite an achievement!

POSTED BY
dillyk
on | January 29, 2014, 20:10 GMT

shamefull...... can expect quite a few releases like this where the ICC will try in as confusingly as possible manner try and justify handing all the power to BCCI and it's two henchman CA & ECB.

POSTED BY
on | January 29, 2014, 20:14 GMT

There is a term NUCLEAR OPTION which is the game of cricket is going to end up with,a parrallel body to ICC would be set up and cricket would be the looser.

POSTED BY
mzm149
on | January 29, 2014, 20:21 GMT

If it was all about money that who is the strongest to make decisions, why wasn't it entrusted to BCCI alone, whose monetary contribution is way too much than ECB and CA, to come up with a proposal. Why were CA and ECB included when they each generate only around 5% income for ICC as compared to 80% by BCCI? How are they superior than other boards like PCB and CSA? I don't get it.

POSTED BY
on | January 29, 2014, 20:41 GMT

This would be end of Country Level Cricket, and more money would be made with events like IPL ... Therefore, Cricket won't produce world class legends anymore.

POSTED BY
Cpt.Meanster
on | January 29, 2014, 20:52 GMT

@mzm149: I guess the BCCI just threw the ECB and CA pieces of bone with meat attached as a way of saying - "You two played cricket before anybody did so you get complimentary seats". The BCCI are so powerful that they can also throw ECB or CA out of the mix if they wanted to. But anyway, both the ECB and CA are there only for the money and I can't blame them for it. However, I still don't think the percentage of revenue sharing is accurate. I mean, if ECB and CA only contribute 5% towards the game, how are they superior to other nations ? It just doesn't make sense. The numbers simply don't add up, literally.